Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Infection risk of undergoing multiple penile prostheses: an analysis of referred patient surgical histories

Abstract

Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is the gold standard for medically refractory erectile dysfunction. Infectious complications remain a significant concern in IPP revision surgery. We sought to evaluate the impact of number of IPP surgeries on subsequent infection rates. A retrospective analysis was performed on all new patients (self or outside provider referred) presenting for consideration of IPP revision or salvage surgery between 2013 and 2015. Histories were reviewed including number of prior IPPs, reason for evaluation, and rate, number, and timing of prior IPP infections. No patients were operated on by the primary investigator prior to data acquisition. We identified 44 patients with at least one prior IPP presenting for consultation regarding IPP revision/salvage. There were 88 IPPs placed by 28 different surgeons. In patients with two or more devices, 55% had at least two different surgeons. The most common reason for presentation was malfunction (52%). The risk of specific device infection was strongly correlated and increased based on number of prior IPPs: 1st (6.8%; 3/44), 2nd (18.2%; 4/22), 3rd (33.3%; 4/12), 4th (50%; 4/8), and 5th (100%; 2/2) (R2 = 0.90, p = 0.01). Similarly, overall rates of infection positively correlated with number of prior IPP-related surgeries performed (R2 = 0.97, p < 0.01). The median time to development of infection after most recent IPP surgery was 2 months (IQR 1–3.3 months). Infection rates of revision/salvage IPP surgery increase with each subsequent IPP placement or following IPP-related surgeries. The majority of patients referred for penile implant surgery can expect to have experienced at least one infection by their 4th device. These data represent a change in paradigm on revision prosthetic surgery.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. 1.

    Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW. Management of erectile impotence. Use of implantable inflatable prosthesis. Urology. 1973;2:80–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Trost LW, McCaslin R, Linder B, Hellstrom WJ. Long-term outcomes of penile prostheses for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2013;10:353–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Lux M, Reyes-Vallejo L, Morgentaler A, Levine LA. Outcomes and satisfaction rates for the redesigned 2-piece penile prosthesis. J Urol. 2007;177:262–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Govier FE, Gibbons RP, Correa RJ, Pritchett TR, Kramer-Levien D. Mechanical reliability, surgical complications, and patient and partner satisfaction of the modern three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology. 1998;52:282–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Serefoglu EC, Mandava SH, Gokce A, Chouhan JD, Wilson SK, Hellstrom WJ. Long-term revision rate due to infection in hydrophilic-coated inflatable penile prostheses: 11-year follow-up. J Sex Med. 2012;9:2182–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Carson CC 3rd, Mulcahy JJ, Harsch MR. Long-term infection outcomes after original antibiotic impregnated inflatable penile prosthesis implants: up to 7.7 years of follow-up. J Urol. 2011;185:614–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Pastuszak AW, Lentz AC, Farooq A, Jones L, Bella AJ. Technological improvements in three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis design over the past 40 years. J Sex Med. 2015;12(Suppl 7):415–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Henry GD, Wilson SK, Delk JR 2nd, et al. Revision washout decreases penile prosthesis infection in revision surgery: a multicenter study. J Urol. 2005;173:89–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Abouassaly R, Angermeier KW, Montague DK. Risk of infection with an antibiotic coated penile prosthesis at device replacement for mechanical failure. J Urol. 2006;176:2471–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Grewal S, Vetter J, Brandes SB, Strope SA. A population-based analysis of contemporary rates of reoperation for penile prosthesis procedures. Urology. 2014;84:112–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Caire AA, Boonjindasup A, Hellstrom WJ. Does a replacement or revision of an inflatable penile prosthesis lead to decreased patient satisfaction? Int J Impot Res. 2011;23:39–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Deuk Choi Y, Jin Choi Y, Hwan Kim J, Ki Choi H. Mechanical reliability of the AMS 700CXM inflatable penile prosthesis for the treatment of male erectile dysfunction. J Urol. 2001;165:822–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Kim DS, Yang KM, Chung HJ, Choi HM, Choi YD, Choi HK. AMS 700CX/CXM inflatable penile prosthesis has high mechanical reliability at long-term follow-up. J Sex Med. 2010;7:2602–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Wilson SK, Delk JR, Salem EA, Cleves MA. Long-term survival of inflatable penile prostheses: single surgical group experience with 2,384 first-time implants spanning two decades. J Sex Med. 2007;4:1074–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG, McConnell JD, Hendin BN. Factors influencing the outcomes of penile prosthesis surgery at a teaching institution. Urology. 2003;62:918–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Dhar NB, Angermeier KW, Montague DK. Long-term mechanical reliability of AMS 700CX/CXM inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol. 2006;176:2599–601. discussion 601

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Henry GD, Donatucci CF, Conners W, et al. An outcomes analysis of over 200 revision surgeries for penile prosthesis implantation: a multicenter study. J Sex Med. 2012;9:309–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Quesada ET, Light JK. The AMS 700 inflatable penile prosthesis: long-term experience with the controlled expansion cylinders. J Urol. 1993;149:46–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Licht MR, Montague DK, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM. Cultures from genitourinary prostheses at reoperation: questioning the role of Staphylococcus epidermidis in periprosthetic infection. J Urol. 1995;154:387–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Wilson SK, Delk JR 2nd. Inflatable penile implant infection: predisposing factors and treatment suggestions. J Urol. 1995;153:659–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Jarow JP. Risk factors for penile prosthetic infection. J Urol. 1996;156:402–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Ziegelmann M, Köhler TS, Bailey GC, Miest T, Alom M, Trost L. Surgical patient selection and counseling. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6:609.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Holland B, Kohler T. Minimizing penile implant infection: a literature review of patient and surgical factors. Curr Urol Rep. 2015;16:81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Henry GD, Wilson SK, Delk JR 2nd, et al. Penile prosthesis cultures during revision surgery: a multicenter study. J Urol. 2004;172:153–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Bernal RM, Henry GD. Contemporary patient satisfaction rates for three-piece inflatable penile prostheses. Adv Urol. 2012;2012:707321.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Landon W. Trost.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Montgomery, B.D., Lomas, D.J., Ziegelmann, M.J. et al. Infection risk of undergoing multiple penile prostheses: an analysis of referred patient surgical histories. Int J Impot Res 30, 147–152 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-018-0026-6

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links